Posted on 07/25/2009 9:30:24 AM PDT by marktwain
Georgia resident Luke Woodard ended up in the Paulding County jail for purchasing lottery tickets while carrying a handgun openly. He was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, even though he was carrying openly, and disorderly conduct. As reported in these pages previously, Luke Woodard sued the two Paulding County Sheriff's Deputies involved. Federal Judge Harold Murphy, Northern District of Georgia, recently ruled that the officers had no probable cause to arrest Mr. Woodard on either charge, and that therefore, his arrest was illegal.
The analysis does not end there, however, as the court decided to go further and argue that the two deputies had something called "arguable" probable cause relating to one of the criminal charges. The result of a finding of "arguable" probable cause was that the officers were immune from damages in a lawsuit.
On the concealed carry charge, the court held that there was not even arguable probable cause.
The Court concludes that a reasonable officer with an adequate understanding of the law would not have concluded that Plaintiff had violated O.C.G.A. 16-11-126(a) (the concealed carry statute).
On the disorderly conduct charge, however, the court came to a startlingly different conclusion. Although the officers did not have facts to support the necessary elements of a disorderly conduct claim, the court was willing to accept that the officers may have had facts to support two of the three elements, and "a reasonable officer could have concluded" that the missing element was present. In order to reach this conclusion, the court had to make three conclusions. First, it had to find that Mr. Woodard was "acting in a state of violent agitation." The sole fact used to support this finding was the undisputed and admitted fact that Mr. Woodard checked his gun more than once to see if it was secure on his belt. Second, the court had to conclude that a reasonable (even though mistaken) officer could have concluded that Mr. Woodard's "violent and tumultuous" action of checking his gun was aimed at certain people. Third, the court had to find that those people were placed in reasonable fear of their safety.
Officers who spot people openly carrying should not, however, believe that the result of this case would be the same for them should they detain a person merely for legally carrying a gun openly and exposed. The court emphasized that merely carrying a gun is not "violent and tumultuous." The court held:
Likewise, if Plaintiff had merely entered the store while legally carrying a gun in the small of his back, he would not have acted in a tumultuous way.
The lesson from this case is probably not to "fidget" with your gun or check it when people are watching.
Finding that the officers unlawfully arrested Mr. Woodard with a lack of probable cause while also finding that the officers had "arguable" probable cause results in the conclusion that Mr. Woodard wins but cannot recover damages from the officers. The legal doctrine of qualified immunity protects officers who were "reasonable but mistaken." Only one mistaken charge needs to be reasonable for the entire damages claim to be thrown out, so the fact that the concealed carry charge was unreasonable for any officer "with an adequate understanding of the law" ends up meaning nothing in terms of damages.
Although the officers are immune from damages, the case is still alive on the issues of seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. Roswell attorney John Monroe, who represents Luke Woodard, said, “We will examine the order and determine what further relief from the court appears appropriate based on the court’s rulings." For more info: You may read Judge Murphy's ruling for yourself by clicking here and visiting GeorgiaCarry.Org.
at least he got the important part of the ruling correct.
Another lesson to be learned is that people shouldn’t be constantly checking their equipment in public....
...and here I was trained by the Army that checking your equipment is a good thing.
There needs to be an Obama type reform to disorderly conduct. It seems to have become the catch-all arrest for whenever the law does not apply. I understand the intention but it seems the interpretation is far too open and applied randomly.
Actually the judge continued the fiction that allows the police to arrest anyone at any time for no reason and claim disorderly conduct. That is not a free society at work.
You missed the double entendre in my posting
Do you watch any South Park?
Checking your "fireman" in public IS grounds for arrest in most states.
“First, it had to find that Mr. Woodard was “acting in a state of violent agitation.”
No way any reasonable person jumps from “checking if a firearm is secure on his belt” to “violent agitation”. In my opinion, “disorderly conduct” is a B.S. charge. Threatening a police officer would be disorderly conduct.
“I understand the intention but it seems the interpretation is far too open and applied randomly.”
That’s the whole point! Just like ‘general welfare’, ‘probable cause’, or ‘interstate commerce’.
Fron what is written, I don’t see the disorderly conduct charge. It appears the judge wants to ensure cops have a catchall basis for arrest.
This 55 years ago would have caused the officers to be fired, as well as the judge. How absolutely insane to believe that checking to make sure a holster is still secured to a belt to be acting in a menacing manner. Our "justice" system is so broken there's no way to repair it.
Mr. Woodard should file federal criminal charges against the cops for violating his constitutional rights under color of law.
bttt
He was probably open carrying as a matter of pressing the issue of open carry - thus making himself uncomfortably aware of its visibility. This pan-conscious awareness/belief that a perfectly legal activity may very well get one arrested tends to induce nervous fidgeting, and with carrying a pistol that means frequently adjusting it into a more comfortable & low-profile position.
Hence, he frequently “checked” it. Just nervous fiddling. People new to concealed carry tend to do the same thing, but being concealed they don’t get caught at it so easily.
These sorts of stories (about abuse of powers & acting under color of law/office) seem to be getting more prevalent. Indeed, several months ago the police ‘visited’ my apartment w/o a warrant while I wasn’t on the premises due to a 911 call placed by someone who was not near either spatially or temporally... interesting to note is that several of the policemen came on to the property weapons-drawn; and another refused to answer the question “Why are you here?” / “What is this about?”
I recently got in an argument about my opinion on Murtha, that he should be tried for treason; my friend thinks that making people pay for saying stupid things though would be excessive.
One day those in authority-positions, conditioned to believe that they are right by virtue of BEING an authority, will push too far. The tense conditions now present it could become something big, ugly, and cost a lot of blood, sweat, and tears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.